Uddhav Thackeray Questions Compliance of Fadnavis's Dharma-Yudh Call with Election Code

Shiv Sena UBT leader Uddhav Thackeray questioned whether Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's call for a "dharma-yudh" of votes breaches the Election Commission of India's Model Code of Conduct. Thackeray raised this issue during a campaign rally in Dombivli, ahead of the assembly elections.

Thackeray recounted being asked to remove "Jai Bhavani, Jai Shivaji" from his party's election anthem before the Lok Sabha elections. He refused to comply with this request. "Devendra Fadnavis has given a call for dharma-yudh of votes. I am asking the Election Commission, does dharma-yudh fit in with your Model Code of Conduct?" he questioned.

Political Allegations and Criticisms

Fadnavis had earlier responded to an alleged appeal by an Islamic scholar for a vote-Jihad against the Mahayuti government. At a rally in Pune, he called for a "dharma-yudh" of votes to counter this appeal. Meanwhile, Thackeray criticised the BJP as being filled with opportunistic leaders from outside.

According to Thackeray, the BJP has transformed into a hybrid party, diverging from its roots built on the sacrifices of its dedicated workers. He lamented that the vision of late party stalwarts like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Pramod Mahajan, and Gopinath Munde has been overshadowed by current leadership.

Contrasting Visions of Hindutva

Thackeray contrasted his vision of Hindutva with that of the BJP. "Our Hindutva lights stoves in people's houses; the BJP's Hindutva burns them down," he stated. He also voiced concerns about a growing Gujarati-Marathi divide.

The former ally accused the BJP-led Union government of prioritising corporate interests over public welfare. He alleged widespread corruption under the BJP and Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, claiming they have exploited municipal corporations in Thane district.

Thackeray's remarks reflect ongoing tensions between political parties in Maharashtra as they gear up for upcoming elections. The accusations and counter-accusations highlight deep-seated divisions and differing visions for governance within the state.